I would like to suggest you read in depth some of the history of that time. Not saying it should have been an easy decision, but
As a military, the Japanese didn't earn much in the way of mercy. Their war conduct was atrocious. Read about how they treated Koreans Filipinos Chinese Captured prisoners etc Medical experiments, "comfort women". Read about the Bataan death march. Read about the Chinese campaign ( not that Chiang Kai Shek was a great guy, but that should have been a Chinese internal matter, and the Japanese were not there to help the Chinese anyway ).
What military only target? There were none. Nothing that would not have affected some "innocents". Those people, in part, were working in the factories supplying the Japanese army and navy with the means to prosecute the war.
They were all working despite normal bombing raids that, really, were more horrific than the nuclear strike. And there was little talk about surrender then.
There were questions about how well the bombs would work. Setting up a demonstration could have been something that made America look foolish.
Do you have any idea of how fanatical some of the Japanese were? Japanese soldiers/airmen captured would sometimes attempt to kill their captors ( IIRC, they succeeded a number of times ) until killed themselves. Sometimes they would refuse capture, choosing death. In battle, they were tenacious, and ready to die. Read about some of the battles for the pacific island. Guadalcanal would be a good one. Sometimes, later in the war, they would just choose death ( Kamikaze ) Did you know that Japanese soldier were still roaming pacific islands until the 1970's, at least? They were expecting the return of the Japanese war machine.
My recollection is that NetFlix has such caching equipment, and that they have offered it to Comcast and Verizon. CC and VZ did not take them up on that offer.
My 1999 GMC Safari ( Chevy Astro is probably the same ) has a foot pedal for the parking brake. I expect this is true up to the end of production for these, not many other places you could put it.
A, about 100 years ago. ( and that is the first thing I thought of when he said "never invaded" ) B, Mexico's borders and leadership do not appear greatly influenced by these events.
I am not getting a great feeling that this will be so for Ukraine.
Hey, look at all this radio traffic It's command/ control traffic from their tanks to where the operators are.... 2 battles later Hey! My tank isn't obeying me! Neither is mine! My God, they are headed rigCARRIER LOST
I just bought a car off a friend. Got a good price on it, in part because the lock system would not work. Why didn't it work? The electronics. The door closed/open sensor system for the drivers door failed. In my opinion, it should be a "so what". But the manufacturer tied all kinds of "smarts" into it. Locks will not lock or unlock, because the system thinks the door is open. So, for weeks until I got it figured out and fixed, I could not lock it.
And dont get me started on the two keys. I have to have two keys. One unlocks and locks as a remote, the other actually starts the car. Electronics again. And "you will buy expensive stuff from us only" pathology. The battery is dead in the one that starts the car. Sealed unit, have to cut the case apart to replace the 3 dollar battery. Made this way so they can charge, I think, about 250 for a remote/key combination. Yeah, I could get it fixed. 250 for the new key(s), then whatever ( lots ) the dealer wants for reprogramming things...
Electronics are good, I like the fuel economy afforded by the engine controls. I like the remote, when it is working properly. And many others, I if I thought about it for a while. But I dont like how electronic systems are used to extort.
I think you have made my point. 20k used iPhones, but how many buyers? How big is the market? From a quick look at google, not getting into iphone/andriod it looks like 10 to the 7th here in the US.
Anecdote != data, but I had my phone die on me recently. I looked at used,there were some, but super high priced. I found 1 phone ( san diego area, craigslist ) that was priced and featured in a way I though was reasonable. No, I didn't expect to pay 30 cents for a smartphone.
I would say that they have jacked up prices and are screwing us over. There is an optimal level of screw-age for them, since they cannot force us to use their products. If they raise prices too much, enough people will decide not to have them, which is not profitable for them.
I would not say there are enough companies for real competition. I believe we are seeing cartel behaviour. I think T-Mobile is struggling and trying to "buy" market share and monetizing people's dissatisfaction. It may be the beginning of something good. Time will tell.
My thought on this: If they had separate pricing on the phones, something like a market for the devices would develop, competition would ensure and prices would go down. ( It is my considered opinion that prices are higher than a market would set them at ) That would eliminate some revenue for the carriers ( and might even lead to A, non carrier companies selling phones, B, a real used market developing ).
Imagine if someone had the bright idea of selling gas and then tying that to car sales. Rather than shared gas infrastructure and competition in both gas and car sales, I imagine we would have "Chrysler", "Ford" and "Chevy" brand gas stations to go with your bright! shiny! new! Chrysler, Ford or Chevy car. Toyoda, et al? No, never happened, you could not buy gas for those. And no one was willing to create the nationwide pump infrastructure to go with it, so no.
I see what you are saying on "people working together".
It is my belief that people are all over the map on the totality of interests. So no group that, for instance, I belonged to, could ever really represent "me" politically. So, why should the place I worked at be able/allowed to "speak/influence" for me? If I belonged to a union, why should they? Should my Church speak/influence for me? And, frankly, it is the influence part that always comes into play. If it were everyone and groups all having a fine old time debating political points, I believe I would be less strident about the matter. But it isn't, at least not from where I sit.
On the "removing everyone's eyes" part, I really don't see it that way. A, corporate entities have no eyes to remove. Their skin in the political game becomes fostering an environment where they survive and thrive I's like letting dogs vote. Their eyes are ( or should be ) the owners, stockholders, employees and customers. There is already sufficient representation. B, I would make the analogy in terms of noise levels. I would say democracy is better served if the "i want more money" corporations were silent and all the real people were not allowed to drown others out because of an accident of birth or circumstance (yes, I mean being wealthy, noted that some do work and earn it)
How about "no taxation without representation"? Since I cannot be heard above the megaphones of the wealthy, I am really not represented.
Thank you for a reasoned and reasonable discussion. I have had similar discussions with others on this topic, and having people misstate my position ( I don't expect many to agree with me, and I know that reasonable people can have differing viewpoints ) and use rhetorical devices. I dislike such, and am pleased we didn't go there.
I'm not sure that Dice and the ACLU work together. But that is not the substance here.
Personally, I don't think any corporation should be able to talk politics. Dice, ACLU, GE, BSA, FSF, Labor union, trade union, etc. A, Corporations will side with whatever makes them money. They will vote their bank accounts, by and large. B, Corporations are composed of individuals. Let them have political speech. Then it is up to them to represent whatever balance of interests they have.
So, me, I want that whole group to go stone cold silent. People, no. But I would want the effects of money on the process to be minimized. Anything else leads ( as it is leading, as I see it ) to defacto rule by the wealthy.
Failing that, no, "side" of the argument should never enter into it. The Voltarian ideal of "I disagree, but say what you believe" should be in effect, for all.
I'm assuming, from your other post that you are talking about people opposed to Citizen's United
Where do you get that being against Citizen's United means that you think that banding together is a bad idea?
I am against CU because it seems to me to corrupt what democratic traditions and institutions we have remaining and moves us closer to rule by the wealthy. I think speech is speech and the amount of money a person has should not enter into how much influence they have over the government. All should have equal influence.
What I want to know is why is this spectrum for sale? Why isnt it for lease? Why arent the carriers paying something per year for the use of the spectrum?
Hello again. This time I wont try to have my cake and eat it too, as I have not moderated in this article.
"So lobbying can have good outcomes."
Yes, and a broken ( old style ) clock is correct twice a day. The occasional "good" accident does not mean accidents are good. ( where "good" means has a good outcome ). So, if I were writing a constitution, things would be different.
"It is difficult to separate the feelings that someone bought a result you don't like from an objective analysis of whether what you wanted them to do was rejected after an analysis of the issues"
And it is not about "what I want". I would like for politicians to properly represent their constituents, like they are supposed to. I really dont think they do that.
"In this case, a "tell me how much I owe" version of federal taxes -- I seem to recall that there was such a system in place many years ago (1970's?) where the taxpayer would send in a form saying "tell me what you want" and the IRS did. I don't hear much about that anymore, so I suspect that it died, and why it died may give a clue to why it wasn't a good idea to bring it back. I don't know."
Lobbying?
"( on buggy whip manufacture ): Why not? If you grant that there are sometimes good outcomes from lobbying, just how do you write this new law prohibiting buggy whip makers while still allowing the useful lobbying?"
Why single out buggy whip manufacturers? Why should there be so much energy expended disallowing stupid. Why not make it so we make the exceptions ( if any ) be the smart things? Strikes me as bass ackwards.
"What SHOULD be the rule is that decisions are made based on merit, and anyone who wants to lobby should have the right to make that speech."
Exactly right. Without extra privileges for those with money. And corporations excluded entirely without exception. ( their owners, managers, stockholders, employees all each individually have the aforementioned right, no additional is needed ),.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to suggest you read in depth some of the history of that time.
Not saying it should have been an easy decision, but
As a military, the Japanese didn't earn much in the way of mercy. Their war conduct was atrocious. Read about how they treated
Koreans
Filipinos
Chinese
Captured prisoners
etc
Medical experiments, "comfort women".
Read about the Bataan death march.
Read about the Chinese campaign ( not that Chiang Kai Shek was a great guy, but that should have been a Chinese internal matter, and the Japanese were not there to help the Chinese anyway ).
What military only target? There were none. Nothing that would not have affected some "innocents".
Those people, in part, were working in the factories supplying the Japanese army and navy with the means to prosecute the war.
They were all working despite normal bombing raids that, really, were more horrific than the nuclear strike.
And there was little talk about surrender then.
There were questions about how well the bombs would work.
Setting up a demonstration could have been something that made America look foolish.
Do you have any idea of how fanatical some of the Japanese were?
Japanese soldiers/airmen captured would sometimes attempt to kill their captors ( IIRC, they succeeded a number of times ) until killed themselves.
Sometimes they would refuse capture, choosing death.
In battle, they were tenacious, and ready to die. Read about some of the battles for the pacific island. Guadalcanal would be a good one.
Sometimes, later in the war, they would just choose death ( Kamikaze )
Did you know that Japanese soldier were still roaming pacific islands until the 1970's, at least?
They were expecting the return of the Japanese war machine.
There are plenty of sources
You are good up to "drive to the parking spot".
But there is no parking, so...
No, peek photons
My recollection is that NetFlix has such caching equipment, and that they have offered it to Comcast and Verizon.
CC and VZ did not take them up on that offer.
Wrong. Cheaper, sure. Weaker and less durable are just ploys to either draw in service work or cause customers to buy sooner.
*And*, the battery is soldered in place!
My 1999 GMC Safari ( Chevy Astro is probably the same ) has a foot pedal for the parking brake.
I expect this is true up to the end of production for these, not many other places you could put it.
A, about 100 years ago. ( and that is the first thing I thought of when he said "never invaded" )
B, Mexico's borders and leadership do not appear greatly influenced by these events.
I am not getting a great feeling that this will be so for Ukraine.
Hey, look at all this radio traffic ....
It's command/ control traffic from their tanks to where the operators are
2 battles later
Hey! My tank isn't obeying me!
Neither is mine!
My God, they are headed rigCARRIER LOST
Mine are. Just adjusted them.
What car do you have?
Very unacceptable, I think.
I just bought a car off a friend. Got a good price on it, in part because the lock system would not work.
Why didn't it work? The electronics. The door closed/open sensor system for the drivers door failed.
In my opinion, it should be a "so what". But the manufacturer tied all kinds of "smarts" into it.
Locks will not lock or unlock, because the system thinks the door is open. So, for weeks until I got it figured out and fixed, I could not lock it.
And dont get me started on the two keys. I have to have two keys. One unlocks and locks as a remote, the other actually starts the car.
Electronics again. And "you will buy expensive stuff from us only" pathology. The battery is dead in the one that starts the car.
Sealed unit, have to cut the case apart to replace the 3 dollar battery. Made this way so they can charge, I think, about 250 for a remote/key combination.
Yeah, I could get it fixed. 250 for the new key(s), then whatever ( lots ) the dealer wants for reprogramming things...
Electronics are good, I like the fuel economy afforded by the engine controls.
I like the remote, when it is working properly.
And many others, I if I thought about it for a while. But I dont like how electronic systems are used to extort.
"If each person over 18 gave $320 dollars, they'd outspend him handily." "numbers still favour the population"
Hardly. You would need to get *everyone* aligned on the issue. And caring enough to donate that amount.
I think you have made my point. 20k used iPhones, but how many buyers? How big is the market?
From a quick look at google, not getting into iphone/andriod it looks like 10 to the 7th here in the US.
Anecdote != data, but I had my phone die on me recently. I looked at used,there were some, but super high priced. I found 1 phone ( san diego area, craigslist ) that was priced and featured in a way I though was reasonable. No, I didn't expect to pay 30 cents for a smartphone.
I would say that they have jacked up prices and are screwing us over.
There is an optimal level of screw-age for them, since they cannot force us to use their products.
If they raise prices too much, enough people will decide not to have them, which is not profitable for them.
I would not say there are enough companies for real competition. I believe we are seeing cartel behaviour.
I think T-Mobile is struggling and trying to "buy" market share and monetizing people's dissatisfaction.
It may be the beginning of something good. Time will tell.
I expect their "true cost" would be far lower in a real market, as opposed to the current captive "market".
My thought on this:
If they had separate pricing on the phones, something like a market for the devices would develop, competition would ensure and prices would go down.
( It is my considered opinion that prices are higher than a market would set them at )
That would eliminate some revenue for the carriers ( and might even lead to A, non carrier companies selling phones, B, a real used market developing ).
Imagine if someone had the bright idea of selling gas and then tying that to car sales.
Rather than shared gas infrastructure and competition in both gas and car sales, I imagine we would have "Chrysler", "Ford" and "Chevy" brand gas stations to go with your bright! shiny! new! Chrysler, Ford or Chevy car. Toyoda, et al? No, never happened, you could not buy gas for those. And no one was willing to create the nationwide pump infrastructure to go with it, so no.
You have a good point. I will have to ponder this.
I still think that for profit corporate participation in the election process/legislation process is harming regular voter participation.
Not really, but I'd be OK with them both shutting up.
I see what you are saying on "people working together".
It is my belief that people are all over the map on the totality of interests. So no group that, for instance, I belonged to, could ever really represent "me" politically. So, why should the place I worked at be able/allowed to "speak/influence" for me? If I belonged to a union, why should they? Should my Church speak /influence for me? And, frankly, it is the influence part that always comes into play. If it were everyone and groups all having a fine old time debating political points, I believe I would be less strident about the matter. But it isn't, at least not from where I sit.
On the "removing everyone's eyes" part, I really don't see it that way.
A, corporate entities have no eyes to remove. Their skin in the political game becomes fostering an environment where they survive and thrive
I's like letting dogs vote. Their eyes are ( or should be ) the owners, stockholders, employees and customers. There is already sufficient representation.
B, I would make the analogy in terms of noise levels. I would say democracy is better served if the "i want more money" corporations were silent and all the real people were not allowed to drown others out because of an accident of birth or circumstance (yes, I mean being wealthy, noted that some do work and earn it)
How about "no taxation without representation"? Since I cannot be heard above the megaphones of the wealthy, I am really not represented.
Thank you for a reasoned and reasonable discussion.
I have had similar discussions with others on this topic, and having people misstate my position ( I don't expect many to agree with me, and I know that reasonable people can have differing viewpoints ) and use rhetorical devices. I dislike such, and am pleased we didn't go there.
I'm not sure that Dice and the ACLU work together. But that is not the substance here.
Personally, I don't think any corporation should be able to talk politics. Dice, ACLU, GE, BSA, FSF, Labor union, trade union, etc.
A, Corporations will side with whatever makes them money. They will vote their bank accounts, by and large.
B, Corporations are composed of individuals. Let them have political speech. Then it is up to them to represent whatever balance of interests they have.
So, me, I want that whole group to go stone cold silent. People, no. But I would want the effects of money on the process to be minimized. Anything else leads ( as it is leading, as I see it ) to defacto rule by the wealthy.
Failing that, no, "side" of the argument should never enter into it.
The Voltarian ideal of "I disagree, but say what you believe" should be in effect, for all.
I'm assuming, from your other post that you are talking about people opposed to Citizen's United
Where do you get that being against Citizen's United means that you think that banding together is a bad idea?
I am against CU because it seems to me to corrupt what democratic traditions and institutions we have remaining and moves us closer to rule by the wealthy.
I think speech is speech and the amount of money a person has should not enter into how much influence they have over the government.
All should have equal influence.
Thanks for explaining it to me.
That makes better sense. Thanks for explaining it to me.
What I want to know is why is this spectrum for sale?
Why isnt it for lease? Why arent the carriers paying something per year for the use of the spectrum?
Hello again. This time I wont try to have my cake and eat it too, as I have not moderated in this article.
"So lobbying can have good outcomes."
Yes, and a broken ( old style ) clock is correct twice a day. The occasional "good" accident does not mean accidents are good.
( where "good" means has a good outcome ). So, if I were writing a constitution, things would be different.
"It is difficult to separate the feelings that someone bought a result you don't like from an objective analysis of whether what you wanted them to do was rejected after an analysis of the issues"
True, but from where I sit too many things look way too purchased.
Also, https://www.commondreams.org/v...
And it is not about "what I want". I would like for politicians to properly represent their constituents, like they are supposed to.
I really dont think they do that.
"In this case, a "tell me how much I owe" version of federal taxes -- I seem to recall that there was such a system in place many years ago (1970's?) where the taxpayer would send in a form saying "tell me what you want" and the IRS did. I don't hear much about that anymore, so I suspect that it died, and why it died may give a clue to why it wasn't a good idea to bring it back. I don't know."
Lobbying?
"( on buggy whip manufacture ): Why not? If you grant that there are sometimes good outcomes from lobbying, just how do you write this new law prohibiting buggy whip makers while still allowing the useful lobbying?"
Why single out buggy whip manufacturers? Why should there be so much energy expended disallowing stupid. Why not make it so we make the exceptions ( if any ) be the smart things? Strikes me as bass ackwards.
"What SHOULD be the rule is that decisions are made based on merit, and anyone who wants to lobby should have the right to make that speech."
Exactly right. Without extra privileges for those with money. And corporations excluded entirely without exception. ( their owners, managers, stockholders, employees all each individually have the aforementioned right, no additional is needed ),.